Self-study
Sociologist: Conclusion The claim that there is a large number of violent crimes in our society is false, for Support this claim is based upon the large number of stories in newspapers about violent crimes. ███ █████ ███████ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ████████████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ███████ █████ █████
The Sociologist's Argument
The sociologist concludes that there aren't a lot of violent crimes. The sociologist arrives at this conclusion by offering an alternative explanation for the large number of newspaper stories about violent crimes. According to the sociologist, there are many newspaper stories about violent crimes not because violent crime is common, but because violent crimes are rare, which makes them newsworthy enough for newspapers to print stories about them.
Circular Reasoning
The sociologist is trying to prove that there aren't a lot of violent crimes. But look at a premise supporting that conclusion:
8.
The sociologist's argument is flawed ███████ ██
a
presupposes that most █████████ ███████ ███ █████ ███████ █████
The sociologist doesn’t make any claims about whether most (over half) newspaper stories are about violent crime. She states only that there are many newspaper stories about violent crime.
b
presupposes the truth ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ █████████
The sociologist's conclusion is that there aren't a lot of violent crimes. One premise supporting this conclusion is that
c
assumes without warrant ████ ███ █████████ ███████ ██ ████████ ███ ███ ██████
The sociologist's argument doesn't depend on newspaper stories being unbiased. The sociologist is only concerned with why newspapers print so many stories about violent crimes, not with whether those stories are fair or accurate in how they cover the crimes. Whether or not the coverage is biased has no bearing on the sociologist's reasoning, so this isn't something the argument needs to assume.
d
mistakes a property ██ ████ ██████ ██ █ █████ █████ ██ ██ ██████████ ███ █ ████████ ██ ███ █████ █████ ██ █ █████
A part-to-whole flaw would involve assuming that what's true of individual members of a group must be true of the group as a whole. The sociologist's argument doesn't involve reasoning from properties of individual crimes to properties of crime overall, or anything similar. The flaw here is about circular reasoning, not about confusing parts and wholes.
e
uncritically draws an █████████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ██████
The sociologist's argument is entirely about the current state of violent crime. There's no comparison between what has happened in the past and what will happen in the future. The argument is about what's true right now.